Total Visits

Friday, 10 October 2014

A strange thing about the way the so-called main stream media operate in the “United Kingdom” today

A strange thing about the way the so-called main stream media operate in the “United Kingdom” today

In the run up to elections there often appears to be a sudden surge of media stories claiming that the British political system is offering a real choice. 

The article below by Janet Daley entitled “Politics is now a bare-knuckle fight again” is very much a case in point.  
Instead of any sort of analysis Ms Daley makes wild claims of there being some great philosophical difference between David Cameron and Ed Miliband.  

By implication she is dismissing the alternative view that both of them are simply careerist members of a political class that hyper inflates relatively trivial differences between their respective parties in order to excite some interest from supporters who are thereby deceived into thinking that there is a real difference between their policies.  Also that their rhetoric is meant to placate some vocal critics like UKIP for David Cameron or Len McClusky of Unite for Ed Miliband.  As it used to be put, when I was in the army, “bulls**t baffles brains!”.  

I would suggest that in fact a more considered study of both parties would be far more likely to come to the conclusion that the British political system is more like a Punch and Judy show where both parties are substantially the same but make a great show of a fight on the “stage”. 

Consider Labour’s and Conservative’s policies towards England:-  Both the leaderships want us to remain in the EU; Both want to continue very similar policies on immigration;  Both wish to spend more money than they actually receiving in tax revenue, thus in the long term beggaring the country in order to, in the short term, give themselves political advantage;  Both believe in Liberal Internationalist, Neo Colonial,  Military interventions across the world; Both believe in vast additional borrowing to pay Foreign Aid; Both intend to build over vast swathes of English countryside to deal with a housing crisis which is fundamentally caused by having allowed probably over 5 million immigrants into the country in an almost wholly uncontrolled manner over the last 10 years!  Where’s the difference Janet?

Despite all this Janet Daley’s article shows she wishes to puff up what are fundamentally piffling differences over a little bit of tax here or there!

See what you think.

British politics is now a bare-knuckle fight again

For the first time in a generation, voters will have a chance to make a real difference at the general election in 2015

By Janet Daley

  Politics is back – by which I mean real politics when people with actual differences of opinion are up to a fight for public support and the approval of the electorate. The centre ground, once decreed to be the only territory on which elections could be won, is now a no man’s land, a demilitarised zone, an empty space evacuated by the serious parties in preparation for a genuine fight to the death over fundamental beliefs. After those two starkly contrasting party conferences, we know that what will be on offer at the next election is a choice not just between rival sets of government policies, but competing philosophies of the good society and radically differing ideas of how government should encourage virtuous b_ehaviour.

In two equally astonishing leaps, the party leaders have embraced diametrically opposed positions on the role of government and the responsibility of the private individual. Ed Miliband’s Principle of Together is nothing less than the old model of socialist communality in which the desires of the individual must always be subsumed under collective need, and the state is the distributor of economic fairness. David Cameron’s vision is of a country in which personal responsibility for oneself and one’s family is paramount, in which hard work is rewarded and self-determination is a social ideal. This isn’t just a political or economic disagreement: it’s a profound ethical parting of the ways.

By accident or intention, everybody has effectively accepted that the ceasefire is over. The entire national conversation about how we should be governed no longer needs to be held within the confines of soft Left consensus. The Tories will talk unashamedly of free market, low-tax low-spend, small government Conservatism, and Labour will unequivocally endorse big government, state-sponsored collectivism. Political discourse has not been as visceral as this since the 1980s. There will be an urgent and meaningful debate about the principles which determine the conditions in which life is lived. Isn’t that wonderful?

For the first time in a political generation, you the voter – whom this is all supposed to be about – will have a chance to make a real difference. Instead of a phony war between political leaders who were marketing themselves as slightly improved versions of each other, there will be two radically opposed conceptions of what government is for, and what responsibilities ordinary people should be expected to assume. If you are old enough to remember, you may say that we have had this argument before: the general election of 1983 put the choices as starkly as they could be put, and the country made its judgment so decisively that Labour had to re-invent itself to get back into the discussion. True enough. Yet here we are again, being offered a re-run. And what makes it particularly interesting is that it may not turn out the same way.

Maybe the country is made of different stuff than it was back then. Perhaps it has been softened up by Labour’s extension of welfare dependency into the middle classes and by the remarkably effective media assault on market forces. Nor do the times seem quite so desperate: the lights are not going out and the nation is not being regularly held to ransom by lawless trade unions. Yes, it could end differently this time. But at least we will get to talk about it. There will be a chance once again to debate the most important social questions of our time and to bring the democratic process back to life.

What that means is that everybody’s voice will matter. The most pernicious aspect of the “centre ground” mentality was that it was, ironically, so illiberal. It narrowed the acceptable limits of political possibility to a tiny range of received opinions. Anyone who could not subscribe to that set of premises or social attitudes was simply beneath consideration. Either you agreed with the consensus or you were not fit to participate. (Or as one particularly enthusiastic proponent put it, you are so out of touch with modern life that you might as well go away and die.) Bizarrely, the centre ground merchants became, in the end, so mutually affirming and autocratic that they seemed not to notice how ugly their certainty had become.

Never mind that the tenets of the orthodoxy were in fact mutually contradictory – the promotion of gay marriage being at odds, for example, with respect for ethnic minority cultures, or the regard for women’s rights clashing with the rules of some religions – and so could not actually be enforced with any consistency. Politicians all had to make the same untested incoherent pledge to a vague liberal niceness. It was the sympathetic intention that mattered – not the logic or the fact that the programme was actually impossible to implement. It is on the practical implementation that these two competing world views will be tested. The Miliband option offers little so far in the way of detail except for commitments to yet more public spending while at the same time accepting the need (more or less) to cut the deficit.

But the Tories, even hamstrung by coalition, have begun to show the country what their approach might mean. Iain Duncan Smith has argued from the start that his welfare reforms were not just designed to cut government spending. His case has always been that welfare dependency is more than a waste of money: it’s a waste of life. It is human potential that is being squandered as well as taxpayers’ wealth. That is a microcosm of the brave new Conservative pitch: the clearest practical justification of the claim that the Tories are now the real party of compassion and social justice.

As I say, the country may not be ready to buy this. It may not see the economic or moral sense in allowing people to keep more of what they earn in the first place, instead of taking a large portion of it away, and then handing it back to those the state believes to be deserving. It may have become convinced that people do not necessarily know what is best for themselves and their families, or that, left to their own devices, they will make only self-serving, anti-social choices.

But at least we can go at it now for all we are worth: make the case, have the full-blown, bare-knuckle barney without having to pretend that there are no real grounds of contention. The outliers at the more extreme ends of the spectrum who had been forced out of mainstream political discourse altogether – the Occupy movement, the Ukip recruits and beyond – can come back on to the pitch. The democratic process will be able to encompass the red-blooded as well as muted shades of pink. And oddly enough, with a reasonable amount of good will, this will make democratic politics more genuinely liberal than it has been for decades.

  Here is Janet Daley’s article >>> British politics is now a bare-knuckle fight again - Telegraph


  1. A lady from the Libertarian party in America said the same. Only one third of Americans support Democrat or Republican and Americans are sick of constant wars and creeping totalitarianism. All main parties are the same and all working for the totalitarian financial oligarchy aiming at world financial hegemony and the genocide of the white race.

    Meanwhile, surely the Welsh flag should be demonised as being racist and xenophobic as it refers to the battle between the red and white dragons, the Welsh and their Sais or Saxon English foes? It perpetuates Welsh hatred of the English. One for you, Robin, especially if the Anti-nazis the lackeys of the oligarchs criticise the flag of St George for being such and aim to replace it with something multicultural. On that note did anybody see Twiggy in her native Hackney last night. Not an English face as on educating the East End. We have been ethnically cleansed by the UN at the behest of Goldman Sachs Bank. This is how the whole of England will look once day if nothing changes. As for the ANL they are the brownshirts in the usual Orwellian doublespeak that the New World Order is bombarding us with. By the way, looking back to pre-multicultural days will underline how stressful diversity is. This is what Powell warned about looking at America which is in greater and greater turmoil. Diversity is not strength neither is it peaceful. An interconnected world is sheer hell as it is totally contrary to human nature and we creates a stress only normally seen in times of war.

    As for doublespeak a gent in New York is selling shirts of Putin the peacemaker. As Powell said, Russia is our ally and the Americans the aggressor.

    1. According to the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle, the Saxon standard at the Battle of Hastings was the red-gold dragon. The Welsh seem to have pinched the Saxons' red dragon.
      The white dragon is spurious and comes from Geoffrey of Monmouth's 'History of the Kings of Britain'.

  2. Anti-English Ukip has been allowed to park a bloody great tank on the EDs' turf in Heywood and Middleton. The English Democrats need a leadership which understands strategy and tactics. They have yet to learn the necessity that the party has to build in a geographical area. For example, the Isis Sunni faction in Iraq did not set themselves up in the Shia south of Iraq, but in the Sunni north of Iraq and in Sunni Syria. The English Democrats have to set themselves up as the opposition in the Labour leaning North; they don't stand a chance of over-taking Ukip in the Tory leaning South. (At least not for a long time).
    Following the failure to get off their asses in Heywood and Middleton, the English Democrats have probably lost the North to Ukip, and made themselves an irrelevance. Well done. (That is sarcasm).
    The only way of reviving the party's fortunes might be a relaunch. The party also should consider whether the word 'Democrats' is holding them back. Sublimally, it could be suggesting the toxic Liberal Democrat brand. (There are even some who think that the English Democrats are the Liberal Democrat party in England).
    Perhaps the English Democrats should consider a change of name to the 'English People's Party'

    1. A good thing about 'English People's Party' is that the name can be set over into true English as 'English Folk's Party"

  3. Perhaps the English Democrats should consider a change of name to the 'English People's Party'

    Yes, we could get, say, Paul Potts or Kim Joan Young to run it.

    I don't see anything wrong with the 'Democats' name, it is what we are.

    1. Mr Potts,
      I'm not sure that you and Miss Young are the right people to run the party.

  4. But is it enough to attract support for the English Democrats to campaign on English issues alone. The SNP are seen as left of centre but perhaps it is not clear to potential voters what the leanings of the ED's are. Yes the supposed philosophical differences of the mainstream parties are negligible in reality. So maybe the English democrats need to outline what their own political philosophy is.
    Personally I favour the Iain Duncan Smith low tax and spend approach of allowing people to keep more of their own money. The English Democrats should emphasise that they are the real anti EU membership, anti immigration, pro low tax, anti "Liberal internationalist, Neo Colonial, military interventions", anti house building to assuage the immigrant fed housing crisis.

    1. John,
      You have to think who the target audience is. Ukip has already hoovered up the disaffected traditional Conservative vote in the south by representing themselves as a right wing party. That strategy is harder for them in the north where the target is dissatisfied Labour voters. The EDs have an enormous advantage over Ukip in the north, because northerners are more likely to think of themselves as English rather than British (as well as more likely to see themselves as working class and on the left). It will be easier for the EDs to persuade dissatisfied Labour voters of the case for English independence. That probably means positioning themselves on the left with regard to social policy, and the taking into public ownership of the railways, and the public utilities such as water, gas and electricity, while taking a strong line on immigration, where it threatens English jobs, housing, schools and health provision, and on the membership of the EU, which is behind much of the immigration.
      Also, the north has had more recent experience of Labour councils, so the north is looking for a leftish alternative to Labour. Ukip is representing itself as that in the north, but as on the right in the south. They cannot continue to stride two such different horses, although the Lib Dems did manage a similar trick for some time, but now that there are credible alternatives, their duplicity is working against them.
      Having been a staunch member of the Conservative party, Robin might find this analysis hard to stomach, but he should remember that the SNP was characterised as 'tartan Tories', and they managed to reposition themselves on the left to where the majority of Scots are politically.

  5. Robin

    I have been completing the Promoted Conduct Questionnaire relating to the lack of a devolved Parliament for England. I will of course send you a copy beforehand.

    I also intend to complete another questionnaire and send it to both the NUJ and BBC.

    I feel that by doing these we can prevent anti English racial bias in news reporting and of course force the government into dealing with English self government.

    Robin we need to use legal methods using the per action questionnaires to force change as the political methods are failing because of the inherent media bias. Once the media bias is sorted we can then start using politics without victimisation and harassment.


  6. I caught a strapline in the Daily Mail to the effect that UKIP was rising due to the nation's total despair at mass immigration. You may gib at UKIP but this is a positive sign as our island defences are now being stormed by the whole third world and as elsewhere in Europe and even in North America where white minority status is just a couple of decades away, panic is taking hold. One statistic that I try to get across to people, as I did the other day, is that the population of the world since that War has tripled but only 3% of that increase has been down to Europeans. And the populations of Asia and Africa are due to double again. European countries and those of European settlement will be swept into the seas by what has been called an immigration tsunami. The policies of the New World Order with regard to perpetual war and continued plunder of the rest of the world is ensuring that this will continue, whereas action should have been taken decades ago to curb third world birthrates. This is rendered more difficult by the policy of some muslims of outbreeding Christians et al with a view to world domination. As we know, Indira Ghandi tried in India and probably paid the ultimate price for her efforts. Another statistic is the effect of this massive third world increase, Europeans a mere one hundred years ago constituted one third of the world's population. Because of being so rapidly outbred, this has fallen to 8%. Plus of course mass immigration is a deliberate policy by the oligarchic elite.

    As regards the name of the party, I personally do favour the name the English People's Party. This would emphasise that the English are still here for a while and we are not happy about having our country stolen from us by the rest of the globe or reduced to EU regions. I mentioned to somebody the other day that London is a foreign country. This is how it now feels along with many more of our towns and cities. Time was when even northerners felt affinity with London and its cockney sparrows but since they have been driven out almost totally from what was but is no longer England's capital most of now have no feeling for London whatsoever. A world city is another world for world colonisation of sovereign territory.

    As for the name, you have a choice of Democrats as in the Sweden Democrats who have just made massive gains as Swedes becoming buried in asylum seekers and People's Party as in the Danish People's Party who are on the verge of forcing the Danish government to send illegal immigrants home. Personally I think that the English People's Party is a good choice. As regards asylum seekers, a do-gooding but naive lady on Songs of Praise was helping them in Gosforth as the government was not doing enough. Well she will be working at it until she is 100 plus as they will just keep coming and coming.

    Perhaps this name would also go to underline the fact that the English People are now being subjected to a slow genocide along with the rest of the European race. Apparently, some brave soul did try to approach the United Nations to ask for help on the basis of the indigenous English were being subjected to genocide; but Blair the psychopath got there first and said that the English were not an indigenous people. This is the man that when he left his public school was refused the customary handshake by the head and staff members so they knew what they had been dealing with. We all hope to see him behind bars one day although those from the left and the "far right" may just choose to tear him limb from limb.

    1. London was always an international city I'm afraid just like Dublin was never Irish. I can only dream that london and dublin were like Tokyo, Beijing, retaining their native charm.

    2. A singer was recently introduced by, "She has one Scottish parent and one Somali parent, in other words she is a typical Londoner".